CEJIL

CEJIL

- Library
- Sign in

Previous 104 / 109 Next

ANNEX II Note: This map is included for illustrative purposes only. It was provided as an annex to the AAAS Report, and was adapted by the Inter-American Court’s Secretariat to indicate Zones 1, 2, 2-A and 2-B. 104

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Uwazi is developed by
CEJIL
Library
Login

Info
16Relationships

Search Tips

Search text

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Table of contents

I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 5
II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT7
III JURISDICTION10
IV PRELIMINAY OBJECTION ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES10
A.Arguments of the parties and of the Commission10
B. Considerations of the Court11
V THE STATE'S PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY13
A.Arguments of the parties and the Commission13
B. Considerations of the Court15
VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS16
A. The State’s alleged failure to recognize the Punta Piedra Garifuna community as original people16
A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission16
A.2 Considerations of the Court17
B. Admissibility of some facts of the factual framework18
B.1 Exclusion of the facts and arguments related to “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park18
B.2 Request to incorporate facts related to the “Los Chorros” Hydroelectric Project; mining exploration and exploitation activities and the Fisheries Act19
VII EVIDENCE20
A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence20
B. Admission of the evidence20
B. 1 Admission of the documentary evidence20
B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence21
B.3 Admission of the evidence related to mining exploration activities21
C. Assessment of the evidence22
VIII FACTS22
A. The Garifuna people in Honduras and the Punta Piedra Garifuna community23
B. State recognition and titling of the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community26
B.1 Definitive full ownership title awarded in 1993 (800 hectares and 748 m2)27
B.2 Definitive ownership title awarded in 1999 (1,513 hectares and 5,445.03 m2)28
C. Occupation of the territory titled to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community by the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel30
D. Steps taken to free the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community of encumbrances33
D.1 Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and Undertaking signed on December 13, 200134
D.2 2006 Memorandum of Understanding, Special Agreement with the village of Rio Miel of April 20, 2007, and subsequent actions36
E. “Punta Piedra II” non-metallic mining concession38
F. Complaints filed at the domestic level as a result of the conflict39
F.1. Land usurpation complaint, and investigation and criminal proceedings owing to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo40
F.2 Complaint for the offenses of usurpation and threats to the detriment of Pauline Mejia and the Punta Piedra Garifuna community44
F.3 Complaint for abuse of authority owing to the construction of a highway cutting through the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community46
IX MERITS47
A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties47
B. Considerations of the Court48
B.1 The right to collective indigenous and tribal property49
B.2 The guarantee of the use and enjoyment of collective property50
B.2.1 Obligation to ensure the use and enjoyment of collective property under international law51
B.2.2 The guarantee of use and enjoyment by freeing land of encumbrances in Honduras and the Undertaking54
B.3 Inability of the Punta Piedra community to use and enjoy its territory55
B.3.1 Increase in third-party occupation of the territory titled57
B.3.2 The lands titled to Ambrocio Thomas Castillo and Sergia Zapata Martinez, as well as others mentioned58
B.4 Conclusion regarding the guarantee of the use and enjoyment of collective property59
C. Honduran property laws in light of Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 21 of this instrument59
C.1 Arguments of the Commission and the parties59
C.2 Considerations of the Court60
D. Obligation to ensure the right to consultation and cultural identity62
D.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission62
D.2 Considerations of the Court62
A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission65
B. Considerations of the Court66
B.1 The proceedings to protect the property of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community from third parties by providing clear title67
B.1.1 The Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and other measures taken to free the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community of encumbrances68
B.1.2 Alleged lack of a domestic remedy to protect the territories of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community vis-à-vis third parties (Article 2 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 25 of the Convention)72
IX-3 RIGHTS TO LIFE, JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION73
A. The alleged violation of the right to life of Félix Ordóñez Suazo74
A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission74
A.2 Considerations of the Court75
B. Due diligence and reasonable time in relation to the domestic criminal complaints, especially the investigations and criminal proceedings relating to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention)79
B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission79
B.2 Considerations of the Court80
B.2.1 2003 complaint for the offense of land usurpation, investigations and criminal proceedings relating to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo81
B.2.2. 2010 complaints concerning land usurpation and threats and also abuse of authority to the detriment of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members85
X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)88
A. Injured Party89
B. Restitution89
C. Collective compensation through a development fund92
D. Satisfaction: publication and broadcasting of the judgment93
E. Guarantees of non-repetition94
E.1 Adaptation of domestic law95
E.2 Creation of effective mechanisms for regulation of the Property Registry96
E. 3 Other measures requested96
F. Obligation to investigate the facts, identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible96
G. Request for compensation for the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo97
H. Costs and expenses97
I. Reimbursement of expenses to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund98
J. Method of compliance with the payments ordered99
XI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS99
THE COURT, DECIDES:99
XII ANNEXES103
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE VIO GROSS106

Comunidad Garífuna de Punta Piedra y sus miembros. Judgment. October 8, 2015

IACourt judgment

Preview

Type

Costs
Merits
Preliminary Objections
Reparations

Date: Oct 8, 2015

Mechanism

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

Number: C 304

Country

Honduras

Signatories

Alberto Pérez Pérez
Diego García-Sayán
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
Eduardo Vio Grossi
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto
Manuel E. Ventura Robles
Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas

Separate vote

Eduardo Vio Grossi

Primary Documents

Comunidad Garifuna de Punta Piedra y sus miembros. Judgment. October 8, 2015.pdf
English
Download View
Comunidad Garífuna Punta Piedra. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 8 de octubre de 2015.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Supporting files

Comunidad Garífuna Punta Piedra. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 8 de octubre de 2015.docx1.39 MB

No References

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Signatories6
- Judge and/or Commissioners6
País1
- Country1
Mecanismo1
- Mechanism1
Separate Votes1
- Separate vote1
IACourt Documents6
- Order of the President IACHR2
- Order of the IACourt2
- Hearing2
No Label1
- Case1

Create Reference

Select relationship type

Relacionado a
CorteIDH
CIDH
Votos separados
Paises
Jueces intervinientes
País
Multi Select
Mecanismo
Firmantes
Sexo
Tipo
Firmante Voto separado
Estado
Descriptores
Geolocalización de los hechos del caso
Medidas de Protección

Search Tips

Connect to a paragraph

Connect to an entity

Disable highlights

Add to table of contents

Notifications

You're all caught up

New activity will show up here.